Wiki Leaks: Video Of Government Shooting Journalists

Originally posted by constantwonder
Since when did ATS start believing in tweets and blogs?

Since the tweet itself is from Wikileaks, not from some random tweeter/blogger.

For all the people claiming marketing/publicity stunt, I'd love to get your take on this:

What does Wikileaks stand to gain if they talk up a video which does not exist? I mean sure, 'there's no such thing as bad publicity', but when a
site is non-profit and completely dependent on perceived integrity, what could they possibly stand to gain by risking said integrity?

I don't have the whole story here, so i cannot say much other than i don't know much.

I can say, to those who claim the reputation of Wikileaks is pristine, that Steven Greer was at one time highly respected, too. Then he veered off
the road.

I actually hope it is a hoax, if only to prove to me that maybe this scary world we live in isn't quite as scary. But i don't think that is
reality. And if these guys are right, expect that the US will forever be changed both from within and abroad.

In short, someone will lose reputation. Either Wikileaks (if they are wrong) or the USA (if they are right). Neither choice is desirable.

April 5 is a date to me like Dec 25 is to a 5 year old. I know 911 was an inside job and I know the Government has been up to no good for decades.
Problem is that there has not been concrete proof. I hope April 5 will produce a video that will allow those of us who know to have the "ah ha"
here is what a smoking gun looks like to non believers. The sooner the non believers become believers is the sooner our sick nation can start
healing. The truth is out there I just hope that this release this will start proving us right beyond a shadow of doubt to the non believers. I want
to see the country our forefathers tried to create for everyone to be able to feel equal and safe to follow Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness with out fear for the future of our children!

Originally posted by IceHappy
...I know 911 was an inside job and I know the Government has been up to no good for decades. Problem is that there has not been concrete proof. I
hope April 5 will produce a video that will allow those of us who know to have the "ah ha" here is what a smoking gun looks like to non believers.
...

Wikileaks needs to get their hands on the rest of those Pentagon tapes! My God, could you imagine if they showed something other than a passenger
jet...

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
Aside from ONE BLOG (I believe blogs are as useful as a high school newspaper) is there any proof of this?

Look, I understand the tendency to doubt the reliability of blogs (although with the proven fact-checking ineptitude and obvious bias of the MSM,
it's hard to believe any news source to be reliable), but the first four lines of the OP show a tweet from Wikileaks itself.

In addition, the Wikileaks page contains this info:

Over the last few years, WikiLeaks has been the subject of hostile acts by security organizations...

But the increase in surveillance activities this last month, in a time when we are barely publishing due to fundraising, are excessive. Some of the
new interest is related to a film exposing a U.S. massacre we will release at the U.S. National Press Club on April 5.

If you're after proof that Wikileaks are claiming to have this video, and planning to release it April 5, there you have it.

If you're after proof of the existence of the video itself, what proof will suffice other than the video itself? Until it is released, there can be
no absolute proof of its existence, but the past track record of Wikileaks and, as I have mentioned before, the fact that Wikileaks only stands to
lose credibility if their claims prove to be false must lend some credence to their claims.

Yes, there is some degree (a large degree in fact) of speculation. But this is not just some random faceless blogger making claims. The claims are
made by Wikileaks.

Just so you can know, (proof) that the Twitter blog is coming from Wikileaks. As to the actual story Wikileaks is talking about, the ball is in their
court. Any proof there, would need to be something confidential and written about by the CIA as a Modus Operandi. A video showing that MO in practice
would be the confirmation.

So I'm expected to completely dis-concern the media yet take the word of a blogger seriously and fact.

And let's say it is true all true, that journalists were killed, let's say the facts are true on that....now what about the facts that it was
deliberate? Accidents happen, like when a US jet fired and killed Canadian soldiers, hell, maybe that was purpose too!! Geez.

And as a parallel. If I owned a company, and I screwed something up within that company and some douche tries to hack my computer network to find out
what I screwed up....yeah, I'd beat the crap out of him too.

You're twisting my words. I never said you should trust a blog, simply that you can pretty much trust a blog as much as you can trust the MSM
- which is not much. My view is take everything with a grain of salt - question everything. You're the one who singled out blogs as untrustworthy,
implying that there are other sources more trustworthy. I say everything should be questioned, be it blog, Fox News report, or BBC report.

But that's besides the point, my main point was that there is more than just 'a blog' to prove Wikileaks claim to have this video. Wikileaks call
it a video of a 'massacre', now perhaps that's sensationalism, but there's really no point speculating on the content of the video. Let's just
wait and see. All I'm saying is that it looks pretty certain that this video does exist, and judging by the ramp up of covert activities against
Wikileaks, it's a pretty serious video.

And as to your analogy, if your company was public then you would have a duty to reveal your 'screw up' to your stockholders. Every US citizen is a
stockholder in the US Government, therefore they have a right to know about any 'screw ups'.

Hi Stev,
Tomisn is deliberately placing emphasis on "THE BLOG" when it is clear that the source is Wikileaks using Twitter. There is no debate, just
rhetoric.

Besides, ad hominem applies to the debater as well as their topics. Attacking the validity of a source by calling into question things like motives
or how well established they are is silly, fallacious, and low brow.

Either the information is true or not, regardless of how much the mouth that tells it likes to lie.

Hi Stev,
Tomisn is deliberately placing emphasis on "THE BLOG" when it is clear that the source is Wikileaks using Twitter. There is no debate, just
rhetoric.

Besides, ad hominem applies to the debater as well as their topics. Attacking the validity of a source by calling into question things like motives
or how well established they are is silly, fallacious, and low brow.

Either the information is true or not, regardless of how much the mouth that tells it likes to lie.

I agree, and the high school
"confidential" reference, just fell out of the sky! I wish I had a high school blog when I was at school

Our production meeting used a discreet, closed, backroom, because we were working on the analysis of a classified U.S. military video showing civilian
kills by U.S. pilots. During the interrogation, a specific reference was made by police to the video—which could not have been understood from that
day’s exterior surveillance alone. Another specific reference was made to “important”, but unnamed Icelandic figures. References were also made
to the names of two senior journalists at the production meeting.

Simple question, which I don't think has been asked. Do we have a group of journalists who have disappeared/turned up dead? If the video shows a
group of journos being executed then surely somebody since then has missed them?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.